Advertisement

Knowledge and Information Systems

, Volume 51, Issue 2, pp 435–457 | Cite as

Markov logic networks for adverse drug event extraction from text

  • Sriraam NatarajanEmail author
  • Vishal Bangera
  • Tushar Khot
  • Jose Picado
  • Anurag Wazalwar
  • Vitor Santos Costa
  • David Page
  • Michael Caldwell
Regular Paper

Abstract

Adverse drug events (ADEs) are a major concern and point of emphasis for the medical profession, government, and society. A diverse set of techniques from epidemiology, statistics, and computer science are being proposed and studied for ADE discovery from observational health data (e.g., EHR and claims data), social network data (e.g., Google and Twitter posts), and other information sources. Methodologies are needed for evaluating, quantitatively measuring and comparing the ability of these various approaches to accurately discover ADEs. This work is motivated by the observation that text sources such as the Medline/Medinfo library provide a wealth of information on human health. Unfortunately, ADEs often result from unexpected interactions, and the connection between conditions and drugs is not explicit in these sources. Thus, in this work, we address the question of whether we can quantitatively estimate relationships between drugs and conditions from the medical literature. This paper proposes and studies a state-of-the-art NLP-based extraction of ADEs from text.

Keywords

Natural language processing Adverse drug event extraction Markov logic networks Statistical relational learning 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge National Institute of Health Grant Number NIGMS 5R01GM097618 for the support.

References

  1. 1.
    Bui C, Sloot PMA, van Mulligen EM, Kors J (2014) A novel feature-based approach to extract drug–drug interactions from biomedical text. Bioinformatics. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gurwitz J, Field T, Harrold L, Rothschild J, Debellis K, Seger A (2003) Incidence and preventability of adverse drug events among older persons in the ambulatory setting. JAMA 289(9):1107–1116Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    White R, Tatonetti N, Shah N, Altman R, Horvitz E (2013) Web-scale pharmacovigilance: listening to signals from the crowd. JAMIA 20(3):404–408. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-001482
  4. 4.
    Page D, Santos Costa V, Natarajan S, Barnard A, Peissig PL, Caldwell M (2012) Identifying adverse drug events by relational learning. AAAIGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Clayton R (2013) Calculating similarity (part 1): cosine similarity [Internet]Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    (2010) VA/DoD clinical practice guideline for management of opioid therapy for long-term pain, D.o.D, Department of Veterans Affairs,Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pray L, Robinson S (2007) Enhancing postmarket safety monitoring. Challenges for the FDA: the future of drug safety, workshop summary. The National Academies Press, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Oliveira JL, Lopes P, Nunes T, Campos D, Boyer S, Ahlberg E, Mulligen E, Kors J, Singh B, Furlong L (2013) The EU-ADR web platform: delivering advanced pharmacovigilance tools. Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety. Wiley Online Library, New York, pp 459–467Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ang PS, Chen Z, Chan CL, Tai BC (2016) Data mining spontaneous adverse drug event reports for safety signals in Singapore—a comparison of three different disproportionality measures. Expert Opin Drug SafGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Narushima D, Kawasaki Y, Takamatsu S, Yamada H (2016) Adverse events associated with incretin-based drugs in Japanese spontaneous reports: a mixed effects logistic regression model. Peer J 4:e1753. doi: 10.7717/peerj.1753.eCollection 2016
  11. 11.
    Tolies J, Lewis RJ (2016) Time-to-event analysis JAMA 315:1046–1047Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ibrahim H, Saad A, Abdo A, Sharaf Eldin A (2016) Mining association patterns of drug-interactions using post marketing FDA’s spontaneous reporting data. J Biomed Inform 60:294–308. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2016.02.009
  13. 13.
    Baldini A, Von Korff M, Lin EH (2012) A review of potential adverse effects of long-term opioid therapy: a practitioners guide. The primary care companion to CNS disorders, vol 3, No 3. Physicians Postgraduate Press IncGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Manchikanti L, Abdi S, Atluri S, Balog CC, Benyamin RM, Boswell MV, et al (2012) American Society of Interventional Pain Physicians (ASIPP) guidelines for responsible opioid prescribing in chronic non-cancer pain: Part I-evidence assessment. Pain Physician 15(3 Suppl):S1–65Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kahan M, Wilson L, Mailis-Gagnon A, Srivastava A (2011) Canadian guideline for safe and effective use of opioids for chronic noncancer pain Clinical summary for family physicians. Part 2: special populations. Can Family Phys Coll Fam Phys Can 57(11):1269–1276Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Poon H, Domingos P (2009) Unsupervised semantic parsing. In: Proceedings of the 2009 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing: vol 1. Association for computational linguistics, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Domingos P, Lowd D (2009) Markov logic: an interface layer for artificial intelligence. Synth Lect Artif Intel Mach Learn 3(1):1–155Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ryan P, Welebob E, Hartzema AG, Stang P, Overhage JM (2010) Surveying US observational data sources and characteristics for drug safety needs. Pharm Med 24:231–238Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Ryan P, Madigan D, Stang P, Overhage J, Racoosin J, Hartzema A (2012) Empirical assessment of methods for risk identification in healthcare data: results from the experiments of the observational medical outcomes partnership. Stat Med 31(30):4401–4415MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Navigli R, Velardi P, Faralli S (2011) A graph-based algorithm for inducing lexical taxonomies from scratch. In: Proceedings of the twenty-second international joint conference on artificial intelligence, vol 3. AAAI Press, Barcelona, pp 1872–1877Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Boella G, Caro LD, Ruggeri A, Robaldo L (2014) Learning from syntax generalizations for automatic semantic annotation. J Intell Inf Syst 43(2):231–246Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mooney RJ, Bunescu R (2005) Mining knowledge from text using information extraction. SIGKDD Explor Newsl 7(1):3–10Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mintz M, Bills S, Snow R, Jurafsky D (2009) Distant supervision for relation extraction without labeled data. In: Proceedings of the joint conference of the 47th annual meeting of the ACL and the 4th international joint conference on natural language processing of the AFNLP, vol 2, Association for Computational Linguistics, PA pp 1003–1011Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gurulingappa H, Fluck J, HofmannApitius M, Toldo L (2011) Identification of adverse drug event assertive sentences in medical case reports. In: First international workshop on knowledge discovery in health care and medicineGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Friedman C (2009) Discovering novel adverse drug events using natural language processing and mining of the electronic health record. In: Proceedings of the 12th conference on artificial intelligence in medicine, AIME ’09, pp 1–5Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Shetty K, Dalal S (2011) Using information mining of the medical literature to improve drug safety. JAMIA 18(5):668–674Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Bian J, Topaloglu U, Yu F (2012) Towards Large-scale twitter mining for drug-related adverse events. In: Proceedings of the 2012 international workshop on smart health and wellbeing, pp 25–32Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Lafferty JD, McCallum A, Pereira F (2001) Conditional random fields: probabilistic models for segmenting and labeling sequence data. Proceedings of the Eighteenth International Conference on Machine Learning. ICML ’0. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, pp 282–289Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Niu F, Ré C, Doan A, Shavlik J (2011) Tuffy: scaling up statistical inference in markov logic networks using an rdbms. Proc VLDB Endow VLDB 4(6):373–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Riedel S, Chun H, Takagi T, Tsujii J (2009) A markov logic approach to bio-molecular event extraction. In: Proceedings of the workshop on current trends in biomedical natural language processing: shared task, association for computational linguistics, pp 41–49Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Poon H, Vanderwende L (2010) Joint inference for knowledge extraction from biomedical literature. In: Human language technologies: the 2010 annual conference of the North American chapter of the association for computational linguistics, pp 813–821Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Riedel S, McCallum A (2011) Robust biomedical event extraction with dual decomposition and minimal domain adaptation. In: Proceedings of the BioNLP shared task 2011 workshop, association for computational linguistics, pp 46–50Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Riedel S, McClosky D, Surdeanu M, McCallum A, Manning CD (2011) Model combination for event extraction in BioNLP 2011. In: Proceedings of the BioNLP shared task 2011 workshop, association for computational linguistics, pp 51–55Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Bergstrom CT, West JD, Wiseman MA (2008) The Eigenfactor metrics. J Neurosci 28(45):11433–11434CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Finkel J, Grenager T, Manning C (2005) Incorporating non-local information into information extraction systems by Gibbs sampling. In: Proceedings of the 43rd annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, pp 363–370Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Klein D, Manning C (2003) Accurate unlexicalized parsing. In: Proceedings of the 41st annual meeting on association for computational linguistics, vol 1, pp 423–430Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Khot T, Natarajan S, Kersting K, Shavlik J (2011) Learning markov logic networks via functional gradient boosting. In: International conference in data miningGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Natarajan S, Khot T, Kersting K, Gutmann B, Shavlik J (2012) Gradient-based boosting for statistical relational learning: the relational dependency network case. Mach Learn J 86(1):25–56MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    J Davis, M Goadrich (2006) The relationship between Precision-Recall and ROC curves. ICMLGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tatonetti NP, Fernald GH, Altman RB (2012) A novel signal detection algorithm for identifying hidden drug-drug interactions in adverse event reports. JAMIA 19(1):79–85Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sriraam Natarajan
    • 1
    Email author
  • Vishal Bangera
    • 1
  • Tushar Khot
    • 2
  • Jose Picado
    • 3
  • Anurag Wazalwar
    • 1
  • Vitor Santos Costa
    • 4
  • David Page
    • 2
  • Michael Caldwell
    • 5
  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA
  2. 2.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  3. 3.Oregon State UniversityCorvallisUSA
  4. 4.University of PortoPortoPortugal
  5. 5.Marshfield ClinicMarshfieldUSA

Personalised recommendations